Will the PCSB move to force LAMB to back-fill after PK4?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^as if LAMB offers "a full Montessori experience." It is definitely Montessori-light, according to the parents I know there. (And they like it that way, but don't pretend it's authentic.)

This is completely false. Please don't disparage LAMB or any other school using lies.

[Anonymous]

Why is everybody so pissed off at LAMB all the time? So they want to run a separate lottery (that follows charter law) and they have a charter that allows them to limit entry years? Why do we have to keep nattering away at them? They are doing an excellent job with the kids they have, and they have expanded so that they can continue to offer slots to as many new families as possible.

They're probably taking way more new kids than a small school like Stokes is, and nobody's complaining about Stokes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is everybody so pissed off at LAMB all the time? So they want to run a separate lottery (that follows charter law) and they have a charter that allows them to limit entry years? Why do we have to keep nattering away at them? They are doing an excellent job with the kids they have, and they have expanded so that they can continue to offer slots to as many new families as possible.

They're probably taking way more new kids than a small school like Stokes is, and nobody's complaining about Stokes.

I dont think stokes has taken any non-siblings in several years. Not sure why LAMB feels the need to expand when idiots just use it as an opportunity to come down hard on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is everybody so pissed off at LAMB all the time? So they want to run a separate lottery (that follows charter law) and they have a charter that allows them to limit entry years? Why do we have to keep nattering away at them? They are doing an excellent job with the kids they have, and they have expanded so that they can continue to offer slots to as many new families as possible.

They're probably taking way more new kids than a small school like Stokes is, and nobody's complaining about Stokes.

The separate lottery violated the law - it did not follow it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everybody so pissed off at LAMB all the time? So they want to run a separate lottery (that follows charter law) and they have a charter that allows them to limit entry years? Why do we have to keep nattering away at them? They are doing an excellent job with the kids they have, and they have expanded so that they can continue to offer slots to as many new families as possible.

They're probably taking way more new kids than a small school like Stokes is, and nobody's complaining about Stokes.

The separate lottery violated the law - it did not follow it.

Should say non-common lottery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is everybody so pissed off at LAMB all the time? So they want to run a separate lottery (that follows charter law) and they have a charter that allows them to limit entry years? Why do we have to keep nattering away at them? They are doing an excellent job with the kids they have, and they have expanded so that they can continue to offer slots to as many new families as possible.

They're probably taking way more new kids than a small school like Stokes is, and nobody's complaining about Stokes.

+1. It's a bit weird that there is so much sour talk about LAMB. Aren't they expanding so that they can serve more kids in the city and open their program up and let more people in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everybody so pissed off at LAMB all the time? So they want to run a separate lottery (that follows charter law) and they have a charter that allows them to limit entry years? Why do we have to keep nattering away at them? They are doing an excellent job with the kids they have, and they have expanded so that they can continue to offer slots to as many new families as possible.

They're probably taking way more new kids than a small school like Stokes is, and nobody's complaining about Stokes.

+1. It's a bit weird that there is so much sour talk about LAMB. Aren't they expanding so that they can serve more kids in the city and open their program up and let more people in?

The "illegal lottery" poster, and Montessori Lite, and BFD poster write in an almost identical manner. Pretty much anything they say is a lie. For example, LAMB did have a language preference lottery until they were told to stop. Then they stopped. It wasn't illegal until they were told to stop. That point has evaded the crazed mind of the illegal lottery poster. Anyone who has actually gone to lamb and done some research knows it's not Montessori Lite. This has been shown time and time again on these boards, so feel free to do a search. Montessori Lite has actually stopped posting about this so there you go. And the BFD poster refuses to understand that her special snowflake will likely not be able to be placed at LAMB since it would just affect a handful of students who won't speak the language or understand the Montessori way. But setting kids up for failure is less important than bragging about sending them to a Montessori Bilingual school to them.

Some people are just angry for whatever reason. I don't care what your rants are, but try to keep from posting lies to prove your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everybody so pissed off at LAMB all the time? So they want to run a separate lottery (that follows charter law) and they have a charter that allows them to limit entry years? Why do we have to keep nattering away at them? They are doing an excellent job with the kids they have, and they have expanded so that they can continue to offer slots to as many new families as possible.

They're probably taking way more new kids than a small school like Stokes is, and nobody's complaining about Stokes.

+1. It's a bit weird that there is so much sour talk about LAMB. Aren't they expanding so that they can serve more kids in the city and open their program up and let more people in?

+1 Why don't we spend our energy on fixing schools that need fixing? LAMB is spending its energy on expanding to allow more kids, so let's be thankful they are taking that step.

[Anonymous]

I'm not "Montessori lite." In fact my kids are among the 56 LAMB graduates and I'm remain a big supporter of the school.

But there are a few things at LAMB that are not standard for Montessori schools - e.g. weekly specials in music and art, students using computers from time to time in the upper elementary classroom.

As a LAMB parent I knew why these things were added and I supported the decision -- and helped raise money to make it possible.

If you are a Montessori purist those things rankle and some of them conclude the school is Montessori-lite.

Throwing around derisive terms without saying exactly what you dislike is not helpful to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And LAMB's current policy is working for its students. The PCSB should seek for solutions to help all students, not just a small handful which will almost certainly not do as well as other LAMB students, and will reduce the quality of education of those already there.

Instead of wrecking what works, they should try to create better solutions for more kids. Sure, forcing the school to go against its mission and research will make a few loudmouths happy, but it really doesn't make a positive change for anyone.

Nobody wants to "break" LAMB, but their current policy needs to work for the public sector, not a select few. Every other public Montessori in the city accept children older than 4, it stands to reason that a few of them won't hurt LAMB either, unless it's such a fragile entity that it doesn't actually deserve public support. As for language, if Oyster (and Yu Ying) can handle some new 5 year olds, (and produce better test results, one might add) then LAMB should too.

Oyster has the benefit of a built in wealthy demographic. They are also allowed to screen for native Spanish speakers. Give lamb those two bonuses and we will see how the test scores go. Yu Ying does IB, which is different as has been explained many times. They also have an "English track" for those who do t speak Chinese well enough. Neither one of your examples does Bilingual and Montessori. This would only assist maybe under 5 kids a year, if that. And it would reduce the number of PK4 spots. I think the only thing it would do is make some people happy since they feel shut out.

LAMB's demographic skews very high SES. The only HRCs with higher SES are YY and CM, though MV may be close. Stokes & DC Bi accept students at later grades, and Stokes does French as well. Montessori does not add a great level of complexity, if it did then Montessori schools all over the country (not to mention just DC) wouldn't continue to add students after age 4. Furthermore, YY doesn't have an English track. It has a specialized classroom for students with specialized education needs. Not at all the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everybody so pissed off at LAMB all the time? So they want to run a separate lottery (that follows charter law) and they have a charter that allows them to limit entry years? Why do we have to keep nattering away at them? They are doing an excellent job with the kids they have, and they have expanded so that they can continue to offer slots to as many new families as possible.

They're probably taking way more new kids than a small school like Stokes is, and nobody's complaining about Stokes.

+1. It's a bit weird that there is so much sour talk about LAMB. Aren't they expanding so that they can serve more kids in the city and open their program up and let more people in?

The "illegal lottery" poster, and Montessori Lite, and BFD poster write in an almost identical manner. Pretty much anything they say is a lie. For example, LAMB did have a language preference lottery until they were told to stop. Then they stopped. It wasn't illegal until they were told to stop. That point has evaded the crazed mind of the illegal lottery poster. Anyone who has actually gone to lamb and done some research knows it's not Montessori Lite. This has been shown time and time again on these boards, so feel free to do a search. Montessori Lite has actually stopped posting about this so there you go. And the BFD poster refuses to understand that her special snowflake will likely not be able to be placed at LAMB since it would just affect a handful of students who won't speak the language or understand the Montessori way. But setting kids up for failure is less important than bragging about sending them to a Montessori Bilingual school to them.

Some people are just angry for whatever reason. I don't care what your rants are, but try to keep from posting lies to prove your point.

Wrong on several counts. I'm not the "illegal lottery" poster or the Montessori Lite poster. I'm just the BFD poster, so I suggest you consider that there's more than one person in opposition.

Secondly, I'm not worried in the slightest about my special snowflake. He is succeeding in Chinese with an IB curriculum, which was by far our first choice. LAMB didn't impress me much - this would be why I question their inability to integrate a handful of 5 year-olds. Nonetheless, there is obviously a dearth of quality opportunities for ES level students in DC, and LAMB's determination to take public funding without serving the public strikes me as contrary to the mission of the public in a public charter school.

I also find the pearl-clutching defense of the Montessori Way to be laughable on its face. Aidan Montessori (Woodley Park) has been a Montessori school in DC for over 50 years, and continues to accept students in its Toddler, Primary, Lower Elementary, and Upper Elementary classrooms. Evidently good Montessori schools can integrate not just 5 year-olds, but 5th-graders. Thus, your desperation to build a moat to keep out the uninitiated Montessori toddlers rings hollow.

Ergo, BFD.

Q.E.D.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And LAMB's current policy is working for its students. The PCSB should seek for solutions to help all students, not just a small handful which will almost certainly not do as well as other LAMB students, and will reduce the quality of education of those already there.

Instead of wrecking what works, they should try to create better solutions for more kids. Sure, forcing the school to go against its mission and research will make a few loudmouths happy, but it really doesn't make a positive change for anyone.

Nobody wants to "break" LAMB, but their current policy needs to work for the public sector, not a select few. Every other public Montessori in the city accept children older than 4, it stands to reason that a few of them won't hurt LAMB either, unless it's such a fragile entity that it doesn't actually deserve public support. As for language, if Oyster (and Yu Ying) can handle some new 5 year olds, (and produce better test results, one might add) then LAMB should too.

Oyster has the benefit of a built in wealthy demographic. They are also allowed to screen for native Spanish speakers. Give lamb those two bonuses and we will see how the test scores go. Yu Ying does IB, which is different as has been explained many times. They also have an "English track" for those who do t speak Chinese well enough. Neither one of your examples does Bilingual and Montessori. This would only assist maybe under 5 kids a year, if that. And it would reduce the number of PK4 spots. I think the only thing it would do is make some people happy since they feel shut out.

LAMB's demographic skews very high SES. The only HRCs with higher SES are YY and CM, though MV may be close. Stokes & DC Bi accept students at later grades, and Stokes does French as well. Montessori does not add a great level of complexity, if it did then Montessori schools all over the country (not to mention just DC) wouldn't continue to add students after age 4. Furthermore, YY doesn't have an English track. It has a specialized classroom for students with specialized education needs. Not at all the same thing.

Lamb has the highest percentage of English Language Learners in DC. The lower grades are more high Ses. Not at Yu Ying but it is my understanding that YY does have a classroom for students who struggle with Chinese. LAMB does not have this for Spanish. Montessori is in fact complex enough that DCPS schools do limit admission in the upper grades. Do your research before you post lies online.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everybody so pissed off at LAMB all the time? So they want to run a separate lottery (that follows charter law) and they have a charter that allows them to limit entry years? Why do we have to keep nattering away at them? They are doing an excellent job with the kids they have, and they have expanded so that they can continue to offer slots to as many new families as possible.

They're probably taking way more new kids than a small school like Stokes is, and nobody's complaining about Stokes.

+1. It's a bit weird that there is so much sour talk about LAMB. Aren't they expanding so that they can serve more kids in the city and open their program up and let more people in?

The "illegal lottery" poster, and Montessori Lite, and BFD poster write in an almost identical manner. Pretty much anything they say is a lie. For example, LAMB did have a language preference lottery until they were told to stop. Then they stopped. It wasn't illegal until they were told to stop. That point has evaded the crazed mind of the illegal lottery poster. Anyone who has actually gone to lamb and done some research knows it's not Montessori Lite. This has been shown time and time again on these boards, so feel free to do a search. Montessori Lite has actually stopped posting about this so there you go. And the BFD poster refuses to understand that her special snowflake will likely not be able to be placed at LAMB since it would just affect a handful of students who won't speak the language or understand the Montessori way. But setting kids up for failure is less important than bragging about sending them to a Montessori Bilingual school to them.

Some people are just angry for whatever reason. I don't care what your rants are, but try to keep from posting lies to prove your point.

Wrong on several counts. I'm not the "illegal lottery" poster or the Montessori Lite poster. I'm just the BFD poster, so I suggest you consider that there's more than one person in opposition.

Secondly, I'm not worried in the slightest about my special snowflake. He is succeeding in Chinese with an IB curriculum, which was by far our first choice. LAMB didn't impress me much - this would be why I question their inability to integrate a handful of 5 year-olds. Nonetheless, there is obviously a dearth of quality opportunities for ES level students in DC, and LAMB's determination to take public funding without serving the public strikes me as contrary to the mission of the public in a public charter school.

I also find the pearl-clutching defense of the Montessori Way to be laughable on its face. Aidan Montessori (Woodley Park) has been a Montessori school in DC for over 50 years, and continues to accept students in its Toddler, Primary, Lower Elementary, and Upper Elementary classrooms. Evidently good Montessori schools can integrate not just 5 year-olds, but 5th-graders. Thus, your desperation to build a moat to keep out the uninitiated Montessori toddlers rings hollow.

Ergo, BFD.

Q.E.D.

Not the poster you are responding to, but how do you equate their restricted entry years to "taking public funding without serving the public"? This is an extremely offensive charge about a Tier 1 charter that has done an exemplary job of educating students. Even their split lottery was an attempt to get more native Spanish speakers into the program, which not only helped the quality of the program but also helped get more low-income kids into the school. It is no coincidence that the FARMS rate has been falling since they got rid of the dual lottery. (And I say that a parent who applied under the dual lottery knowing that our chances as a native English family were much lower.)

Again, I don't understand why so many people want to bitch at LAMB for doing things their way when they are obviously meeting the challenge of educating their students effectively and expanding to accommodate as many kids as they can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And LAMB's current policy is working for its students. The PCSB should seek for solutions to help all students, not just a small handful which will almost certainly not do as well as other LAMB students, and will reduce the quality of education of those already there.

Instead of wrecking what works, they should try to create better solutions for more kids. Sure, forcing the school to go against its mission and research will make a few loudmouths happy, but it really doesn't make a positive change for anyone.

Nobody wants to "break" LAMB, but their current policy needs to work for the public sector, not a select few. Every other public Montessori in the city accept children older than 4, it stands to reason that a few of them won't hurt LAMB either, unless it's such a fragile entity that it doesn't actually deserve public support. As for language, if Oyster (and Yu Ying) can handle some new 5 year olds, (and produce better test results, one might add) then LAMB should too.

Oyster has the benefit of a built in wealthy demographic. They are also allowed to screen for native Spanish speakers. Give lamb those two bonuses and we will see how the test scores go. Yu Ying does IB, which is different as has been explained many times. They also have an "English track" for those who do t speak Chinese well enough. Neither one of your examples does Bilingual and Montessori. This would only assist maybe under 5 kids a year, if that. And it would reduce the number of PK4 spots. I think the only thing it would do is make some people happy since they feel shut out.

LAMB's demographic skews very high SES. The only HRCs with higher SES are YY and CM, though MV may be close. Stokes & DC Bi accept students at later grades, and Stokes does French as well. Montessori does not add a great level of complexity, if it did then Montessori schools all over the country (not to mention just DC) wouldn't continue to add students after age 4. Furthermore, YY doesn't have an English track. It has a specialized classroom for students with specialized education needs. Not at all the same thing.

Lamb has the highest percentage of English Language Learners in DC. The lower grades are more high Ses. Not at Yu Ying but it is my understanding that YY does have a classroom for students who struggle with Chinese. LAMB does not have this for Spanish. Montessori is in fact complex enough that DCPS schools do limit admission in the upper grades. Do your research before you post lies online.

Lamb 2014-15

342 students
Special Ed - 12.3%
ELL - 37.7%
Econ Disadvantaged - 24%

Yu Ying 2014-15

528 students
Special Ed - 8.3%
ELL - 5.9%
Econ Disadvantaged 9.5%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And LAMB's current policy is working for its students. The PCSB should seek for solutions to help all students, not just a small handful which will almost certainly not do as well as other LAMB students, and will reduce the quality of education of those already there.

Instead of wrecking what works, they should try to create better solutions for more kids. Sure, forcing the school to go against its mission and research will make a few loudmouths happy, but it really doesn't make a positive change for anyone.

Nobody wants to "break" LAMB, but their current policy needs to work for the public sector, not a select few. Every other public Montessori in the city accept children older than 4, it stands to reason that a few of them won't hurt LAMB either, unless it's such a fragile entity that it doesn't actually deserve public support. As for language, if Oyster (and Yu Ying) can handle some new 5 year olds, (and produce better test results, one might add) then LAMB should too.

Oyster has the benefit of a built in wealthy demographic. They are also allowed to screen for native Spanish speakers. Give lamb those two bonuses and we will see how the test scores go. Yu Ying does IB, which is different as has been explained many times. They also have an "English track" for those who do t speak Chinese well enough. Neither one of your examples does Bilingual and Montessori. This would only assist maybe under 5 kids a year, if that. And it would reduce the number of PK4 spots. I think the only thing it would do is make some people happy since they feel shut out.

LAMB's demographic skews very high SES. The only HRCs with higher SES are YY and CM, though MV may be close. Stokes & DC Bi accept students at later grades, and Stokes does French as well. Montessori does not add a great level of complexity, if it did then Montessori schools all over the country (not to mention just DC) wouldn't continue to add students after age 4. Furthermore, YY doesn't have an English track. It has a specialized classroom for students with specialized education needs. Not at all the same thing.

Lamb has the highest percentage of English Language Learners in DC. The lower grades are more high Ses. Not at Yu Ying but it is my understanding that YY does have a classroom for students who struggle with Chinese. LAMB does not have this for Spanish. Montessori is in fact complex enough that DCPS schools do limit admission in the upper grades. Do your research before you post lies online.

According to this year's MSDC lottery results:

CHML offered spots in PK3, PK4, 3rd, 7th and 8th in this year's lottery
Breakthrough: PK3, PK4
Nalle offered in PK3
Langdon offered in PK3, PK4, and K
Lee offered in PK3, PK4 and 1st
SSMA in PK3, PK4, 1st and 2nd

There. I did the research for you and then posted truths online.
Shining Stars